Menu
What's new
The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

GX200 is here!

Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I think I am going to get one before the end of the summer. I want something to play with that is small. Resistance maybe futile at this point.
 
Lili

Lili

New member
Guy Mancuso said:
I think I am going to get one before the end of the summer. I want something to play with that is small. Resistance maybe futile at this point.
Click to expand...
"Your resistance is futile, you will be assimilated to the Ricoh Collective!"
Sorry Guy, channeling my inner Geek :)


Seriously, at the this point the GX200 or the seductively discounted GX100 tempt me greatly...
 
B

Bob Yanal

Guest
Joan said:
Hi Guy,
I hear you loud and clear, and I know that best practice is to shoot raw ... maybe I just need better PP skills to get my raw files to look as good as the jpegs from the 2 cameras I mentioned. I'm pretty sure you can shoot both simultaneously with the GX200, someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

I've been trying out various RAW converters and haven't settled on one yet. Aperture and Lightzone are my 2 favorites. For some reason Lightroom is difficult for me to figure out. I guess I need to save up for one of your workshops and let you teach me how to use it! :D
Click to expand...
Joan - At risk of being thrown off this forum, I'm going to agree with you: I haven't found RAW to be preferable to JPEG (I use a Ricoh GX100 - which, by the way, when you shoot RAW you also get a JPEG, whether you want one or not).

Whenever I've put my RAW images through post-processing (usually in Lightzone) AND have applied the same pp to the jpeg that was also taken at the same time, I don't see the difference.

Also, there's something I don't understand. Some people speak of "recovering" blown highlights in RAW. But my understanding of a blown highlight is an area of a photo where there is no information, hence no information to recover.

Bob
 
W

wbrandsma

Guest
Bob, not every colorchannel will likely be overexposed so there will always be some information in the RAW file to recover the blown highlights. Besides that the RAW file contains more information because it has a higher bit depth than the jpeg.
 
Guy Mancuso

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Bob Yanal said:
Joan - At risk of being thrown off this forum, I'm going to agree with you: I haven't found RAW to be preferable to JPEG (I use a Ricoh GX100 - which, by the way, when you shoot RAW you also get a JPEG, whether you want one or not).

Whenever I've put my RAW images through post-processing (usually in Lightzone) AND have applied the same pp to the jpeg that was also taken at the same time, I don't see the difference.

Also, there's something I don't understand. Some people speak of "recovering" blown highlights in RAW. But my understanding of a blown highlight is an area of a photo where there is no information, hence no information to recover.

Bob
Click to expand...
Bob what are you trying to do get a free workshop invite.:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Just kidding, someone had to give you a hard time. The truth is sometimes when the stars and planets align just right all is okay. When there not than trouble starts and Raw can save your day.
 
P

Player

Guest
Bob Yanal said:
Joan - At risk of being thrown off this forum, I'm going to agree with you: I haven't found RAW to be preferable to JPEG (I use a Ricoh GX100 - which, by the way, when you shoot RAW you also get a JPEG, whether you want one or not).

Whenever I've put my RAW images through post-processing (usually in Lightzone) AND have applied the same pp to the jpeg that was also taken at the same time, I don't see the difference.

Also, there's something I don't understand. Some people speak of "recovering" blown highlights in RAW. But my understanding of a blown highlight is an area of a photo where there is no information, hence no information to recover.

Bob
Click to expand...
Bob, I'm still here, so I think the chances of you being thrown-off are pretty remote. :grin:

A leap in thinking that has to me made is that we need to realize once-and-for-all that RAW is superior to in-camera JPEGS, regardless of the experiences and results of individuals. It is a fact, and that's it. Once that truth becomes second nature, we can begin to look for solutions to less than stellar results. And believe me, the problem isn't the RAW file. It's just a data file that you can do whatever your skills and knowledge will allow you to do. The problem is finding the tools and methodology that allow you to mold your RAW files into whatever you visualize them to be, or want them to be.

I hope this doesn't sound like a lecture :lecture: because I'm hardly an expert; I'm just trying to relate what I've learned so far, and what I feel is rock solid information.
 
Terry

Terry

New member
Agree on a thread but a little tidbit first. Both the GRD and Digilux2 put out good jpegs and I don't think anyone is saying don't use them if you like them. However if it is practical to shoot both, it is always nice to have the RAW file a)in case you didn't nail it as well as you could have b)you want to do something different with it later c)if software changes out in the future and your ability to process it again and do more with it becomes reality.
 
V

VladimirV

Guest
Guy Mancuso said:
The truth is sometimes when the stars and planets align just right all is okay. When there not than trouble starts and Raw can save your day.
Click to expand...
The stars and planets align just right most of the time with the GRD I, GX100 and LC1 in my experience but never seem to align at all with the GRD II ;). Although the stars and planets seem to favor the GRD I most :D.
 
kai.e.g.

kai.e.g.

Member
I'm still lurking here, and I'm glad I sat on my hands until now. The fast RAW in the GX-200 is just what I hoped for (actually more than I'd hoped for, given the 5-shot buffer), so this camera is in my near future.
 
Terry

Terry

New member
kai.e.g. said:
I'm still lurking here, and I'm glad I sat on my hands until now. The fast RAW in the GX-200 is just what I hoped for (actually more than I'd hoped for, given the 5-shot buffer), so this camera is in my near future.
Click to expand...
However,
I'm staying tuned as I hear there are some other goodies being announced in the near future that might make us drool (not Ricoh).
 
kai.e.g.

kai.e.g.

Member
Well, you had me going there for a moment or two... I thought you were talking about the Panasonic LC-1 (aka Leica Digilux 2), and I already had my credit card out!

Mind you, I like the lens cap, too ;-)
 
Terry

Terry

New member
kai.e.g. said:
Well, you had me going there for a moment or two... I thought you were talking about the Panasonic LC-1 (aka Leica Digilux 2), and I already had my credit card out!

Mind you, I like the lens cap, too ;-)
Click to expand...
:ROTFL:So did I!!!! I was so confused by this post.
 
kai.e.g.

kai.e.g.

Member
I refuse to buy 2nd-hand yoghurt from Ebay!

Yes, yes, it's GX-200 thread, but it ended with hints of new things on the horizon from other manufacturers, and then your post about dirt-cheap LC1's being dumped on Ebay seemed to fit somehow with that line of thought (for a moment only, mind you).
 
pollobarca

pollobarca

New member
Amazon and not e bay. Whats wrong with cheaper original lens caps anyway?
I just wish pixmania will have this price,you can bet that here in Italy it will be at least 39 euro. Lets face it its only a bit of plastic with 3 spings, real hi-tec ! But a brilliant idea all the same. I'm going to try to get this lens cap from japan , hope it gets dumped on me.
I am also looking forward to seeing the GX200 at citiwide on e bay. They've already reduced the price of the GX100 with EVF. Now costs 20 euro less than I paid in december.

all the best

paul

ps LC1 is made by Nestle' not Danone-sorry for the error.......:eek:
 
kai.e.g.

kai.e.g.

Member
pollobarca said:
Amazon and not e bay. Whats wrong with cheaper original lens caps anyway?

ps LC1 is made by Nestle' not Danone-sorry for the error.......:eek:
Click to expand...
Ah, I'll buy used Danone yoghurt from Amazon and near-mint Nestle yoghurt from Ebay, but not the other way around under any circumsances!

I agree with the European prices - very maddening. Thank heavens for (fairly frequent) visits from relatives from the USA & Australia!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top